Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Honest Reporting has released another of its excellent special reports. The results are unsurprising:
- 82 percent of headlines that introduced articles describing Israeli military operations were written in a direct style in which the words "Israel" or "Israeli Forces" (or a similar phrase) were the subject. In the majority of these cases, no details were given as to whether the casualties were combatants or civilians. An example of this type of headline ran in the Times on January 4, 2008: "Israeli Forces Kill 9 in Gaza."
- Only 20 percent of headlines that introduced articles describing Palestinian attacks named the group responsible. Most of these headlines were written in a passive, less direct style that removes responsibility of the attack from those who caused it. An example of this type of headline ran on May 13, 2008: "Rocket Fired from Gaza Kills Woman in Southern Israel."
- 75 percent of the photographs that could be objectively determined as drawing sympathy for one side or the other in the conflict favored the Palestinians. Palestinian casualties of Israeli military operations and pictures of civilians dealing with shortages in Gaza dominated Times coverage during the time period studied.
This sort of subtlety is the most pervasive form of bias -- a way of assigning blame and responsibility without saying it overtly. It even betrays the way the editors think, more than being an intentional message they're trying to send. (Phrased a different way, it's just the way they think -- not necessarily a conscious message, though it may be that, too.)
Read the rest here: The New York Times: A Year-Long Analysis
Sorry I just don't buy that. A journalist doesn't forget to notice who fired the missile. It's conscious activism.